Search results

Well, quality data of regulated markets must be exactly the same, tick to tick. If something is off it's the problem of poor data feed, not TA. :)

Well, Surf is just one of the discussion participants. And while I am not doing charity here, giving away particular knowledge for anyone (and don't think just giving away edges for free is any good for receivers in the long-term, cause it would suppress their own thinking), I believe discussion...

If several people agree on exact rules of trendline construction including time-frames, number of bars in the swings et cetera, those rules are objective.

If several people agree on exact rules they are no more subjective for each of the group participants.

Yep. Trendlines are absolutely objective among those people who agree about certain rules to construct them.

Oh really? :D

Yea, but somehow certain "academics" disagree. I wonder what's their methodology of testing they don't see the obvious.

Excellent post. Basically the best description of TA I've seen in a while. Yes it is basic cognitive and logical abilities applied to market action, based on a bit of live experience.

For the same simple reason robots still can't substitute humans in most professions: too many inputs. Some day I believe they will do it.

Actually I don't disprove TA, I trade myself based on TA patterns and absolutely agree with you successful TA patterns are slightly different in application than what's taught in books. If it was that simple as see a douple top and enter then it would be too easy for the money trading offers...

Alright, but no different in uselessness or usefulness? :) P. S. That's how I tested TA vs. random entries. It's easy for me cause I already have a working TA approach. I simply took all the same trade management tricks and nuances of my TA entries and applied them to random entries...

Think we need a bit of clarification here. When I say I use TA, it means that TA pattern is the only reason for entry. Obviously statistics, position sizing, money management et cetera are also used as you repeated more than once before. You are absolutely right that unlikely just TA would...

Tell me one thing: do you believe random entries can provide consistently profitable trading approach or not?

Correct, TA patterns constitute past action, but as markets are reflexive, some TA patterns being the past, change the probability of certain price action in the future. As for "which"... well, those I use and those other profitable TA traders use (there are many of them). :)

Generally you want to enter where other large size orders are likely to be thrown into the market as well. To put it into simple words: we need friends to drive prices our way. :) Certain price action around certain levels is the key to catching moves of the most likely immediate follow...

I have tested many combinations of random entries with various trade management. Somehow results are not any close to TA patterns proven to work. So there's still difference.

Statistics applied to setups mostly tells me how much to risk and where to exit optimally. By the way, the largest profit was so far 7.25 points (trade made on Thursday this week). P. S. Profits are always relative to the risk taken. If you grab large profits, but have to risk more for that...

Now, going further, 6.5 hours is too much! 3 first hours usually enough. :D It takes years to learn BEFORE and gets simple after, Bighog is absolutely right about it.

So true. There's nothing wrong with trading, but there's much wrong with expectations most wannabe traders have.

Furthermore, I WANT to be stopped out of losing trades, because there's no single reason to hold losing trades even a tick more than absolutely required minimum.